Talk:Filipinos in the New York metropolitan area

Surpassed
Looking at the references provided, it does not appear to specifically state what is being stated. Please clarify and explain. Wikipedia is not about one region being better or worse than another, and if this statement is not verified than it appears to have a POV issue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely agree - there's no "worse" or "better." But it is a fact which is referenced by the tables that the NYC area is currently receiving more legal immigrants from the Philippines than any other MSA except for the L.A. area, and that's what this sentence is attempting to say (not that the current overall population of Filipinos is greater in New York than Honolulu or SF, for example). I'll see how I can clarify it better. Castncoot (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which tables? I looked through them and I found it difficult where it states what is stated in this article. Is there another source other than these raw table numbers, such as a news article, book, or journal paper that verifies this statement in question?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at Supplemental Table 2 for each year? That's the ultimate source, directly from the United States Department of Homeland Security. There is no more authoritative source than that. Anyway, you go ahead and peruse them. I really have to get back to real life now. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The data on that table shows that X number of individuals settled in one area, and Y number of individuals settled in another area. That is verified, to state A chose to resided in one place more than place B, is not stated specifically. Therefore that is original research. It is not specifically stated by the source. We can say per the sources that are provided in year Y so many new legal resident Filipino citizens settled in the NYC metro area, and Z the following year, and so on and so forth, but no where does it specifically say what is being said in this article, and what was inserted in Demographics of Filipino Americans.
 * Again, please find me a reliable source that specifically says what is being stated in the article and then feel free to remove the tag, until than, I have significant issue with this sentence in either article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm bewildered over your use of semantics here. The data provided by DHS is the ultimate source as to where overseas Filipino nationals "established legal residence", which is how the statement currently reads. Establishing legal residence means they "settled" there, which is what you have stated above is verified. Therefore, I am removing the tag. As far as the parent article, I shall make sure the language reads the same way there. Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, Wikipedia absolutely allows for common sense comparisons based upon viewing explicit figures from a sourced table and in fact, per WP:CALC, goes even further in allowing simple calculations from that table (which are not being performed here). This is an encyclopedia aimed at adults, not at five-year old children. Castncoot (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing the tag until the issue has been resolved. The data does not specifically state that the Filipino American community in the NYC metro area is the rank second growing population, as stated in the article. It states X number of Filipinos settled in NYC metro area, and Y, Z, and A in others. It does not state specifically, "the New York metropolitan area is now receiving more legal immigrants on a yearly basis from the Philippines than several traditional West Coast destinations such as the San Diego, Honolulu, and San Francisco-Oakland metropolitan regions, and the New York City metropolitan region has since 2011 ranked second only to the Los Angeles metropolitan area per the number of new overseas Filipino immigrants establishing legal residence in the United States.". Therefore, per WP:BURDEN, I ask for a reliable source that states what the article presently states.
 * Please see what CALC says: "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations."
 * What is stated in the article is not what is being done in the article. Therefore, WP:OR does apply, as does WP:BURDEN.
 * However, I will give good faith, that another user can find a reliable source that verifies the content, and thus won't remove it outright, but until that is done, please do not remove the tag.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I saw the summary left here. Please see WP:NPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, RightCowLeftCoast, I believe you are not exhibiting good faith whatsoever here. The issue is resolved, but you pretend not to acknowledge it. You also are obviously trying to hide pertinent and sourced data from the reader, which cannot be tolerated in Wikipedia. The data is explicitly stated in the tables, and anybody can see that the data in Supplemental Table 2 toward the bottom of the page specifically supports the statement exactly as written. The United States Department of Homeland Security data clearly states the number of people establishing legal residence each year in each metro area from people of every nationality, including the Philippines, and it's plain as day that the number of new immigrants from the Philippines settling in the New York City metropolitan region is second only to the Los Angeles metro region on a yearly basis since 2011 and is greater than the other regions mentioned, so it is A) factual, and B) entirely supported. WP:CALC infers that an obvious comparison or calculation which is pertinent and based upon a reliable source of data can be made without being construed as original research. I intend to remove the tag specifically because you have placed the tag in bad faith - you have quoted above here that the article reads that "the NYC metro area is the rank second growing population", and that is not what the article is saying, even though that is also likely to be true. What is the article is saying is that the NYC metro area since 2011 has ranked second in the number of new immigrants establishing residence from the Philippines, and that is both correct and sourced.
 * You cannot simply put up a tag in bad faith to compromise the integrity of an article or statement as such. There is no more reliable source of information vis-a-vis this issue than the DHS figures. Any other source from the internet would have to be sourced from these figures, just as population figures from internet sites would ultimately have to be sourced from the United States Census Bureau figures.
 * I have already compromised several times here with several re-workings of the language. What you would like to see ultimately is the entire language of any comparison to go, and for the information from DHS and its sourcing to be hidden from the reader. Obviously you have a POV issue. On both of these points, your agenda is entirely unacceptable, as is the tag. If there were a legitimate reason for a tag there, I would the first one to leave it be, but there simply is not one.
 * I've been around the block a few times in Wikipedia, and I know the significance and rules regarding tags and other disputes. I'm also interested in working with you, so let's turn the tables here. Why don't you reword the language in this article to your satisfaction, which preserves both the second-place ranking of the number of new immigrants from the Philippines settling in the NYC metro region on a yearly basis since 2011 as well as the sources themselves. Let's see what you come up with. I'll give you ample time, but thereafter, the tag needs to go. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The language above is contentious and shows bad faith of myself, and does not create a conducive editing environment. I quoted CALC directly, and stated exactly what it says. The statement in the article does not directly state what is stated in the article. The statement of the article says something not directly stated by the sources used. The sources say X number of legal immigrants from the Philippines decided to reside in multiple different metro areas, however the sources when I added the tag do not direct to the specific table being discussed do not specifically state what is stated, in Wikipedia voice, what the article states. Therefore, I will reword the text as suggested above, however I ask the above user to see WP:CIVIL again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also please see WP:LEAD, including the statement in the introduction, while not having it in the body does not comply with the MOS. The lead is about summarizing the article, and highlighting significant pieces of information. Recent growth of the Filipino community in the greater NYC area, but to highlight it violates WP:RECENTISM--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a compromise I can accept, as at least the reader gets to see the numbers. How exactly did you obtain the url addresses of the actual tables? Meanwhile, there was no intended issue with civility, I'm sorry you took it that way. What I was trying to express is that the DHS has the first and last words with these particular numbers. Cheers!

Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC
The title of this article is potentially impacted by the outcome of this Request for comment re: entries about ethnic groups in the United States. Page watchers are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Filipinos in" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Filipinos in and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Filipinotown in" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Filipinotown in and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Filipino commun" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Filipino commun and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  05:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Filipino community in" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Filipino community in and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  05:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Filipino in q" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Filipino in q and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  05:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Filipinos in ca" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Filipinos in ca and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  05:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Filipino queens" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Filipino queens and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)